Phony War, nice one.
Repubs paint Obama with a phony war on the rich,
Obama has a phony 'fair deal' war on inequality,
They both fight phony wars on deficits, corruption, waste and overspending. The budget supposedly being one of the weapons (or manifestation of).
The budget is a handy illustration of the phony, in sooo many ways.
A document issued by the highest levels that is basically not to be taken seriously, a bargaining tool in election season. We could have fun with the phony fellow commenters! What kind of phony wars are hidden within the budget?
They (the gov, the man, big brother) don't even take themselves seriously anymore, and they are controlling how much of the economy?

There's nothing wrong at all with populist tax hikes. The problem is that for a man as smart as Obama, pandering to voters through petty economic nationalism rather than acknowledging the budget drains and plugging them is demoralizing. We can't really blame him for following the rules of politics, but his promises of hope and change have clearly failed to pan out.

The tag is "populist" but in practice the move is quite practical. The US just spent a pretty penny in stimulus and wars, have to pay that back somehow and evidence is clear the current tax code is skewed. Reduce costs-increase revenues, a time honored and effective strategy. As for hope and change, he had/has been a little busy digging out of a deep hole. Kind of have to shore the walls up before you can get to the curtains. If the change he was referring too was smoothing out the functioning of government, and hope being its bi-product, who really bought that bridge?

You don't realize that these tax increases will save peanuts at best. $90 million over ten years? That's not "digging us out of a deep hole". If he were serious about "shoring the walls" he would take the steps necessary to reduce the deficit. Unfortunately, that means raising taxes on the middle class and cutting spending on welfare and social security. Obama isn't willing to take the necessary measures, but to be fair neither are the Republicans or Democrats in Congress.

Mr. Obama needs to address the elephant in the room. The Department of Education is receiving $93 billion a year to put only 75% of children through K-12. The United States could easily save $23 billion annually if Obama and his capital hill cronies stopped funding these layabout children who refuse to learn.

Education is an elephant in the room every bit as much as healthcare or the military. No one wants to bring this up because in general education is one of the best investments we make. If only the money we spend were going to the children rather than school bureaucracies and teachers' unions.

This budget is mainly for debate and eventual compromises. It was never intended to be the 'draft' doc and is primarily a manifesto.

The gap between political reality and the proposed budget is wider because its Primary season for Republicans and an election year for President Obama. People will digest, mull over and decide on the cost/benefit. Candidates will need to take a stand and polls will be the daterminant.

Two parties are fighting each other fiercely. No wonder that Uncle Sam is in trouble now.

Do Americans really believe in democracy?Are you sure that democracy can be used in all other countries?in fact every rich countries,though thinking democracy makes them rich,becomes well-off only by robbing others of wealth.

Let us see it in detail:the UK and Spain etc,the old capitalist states established colonies in the East;afterwords the new one e.g.the US,uses financial measures to achieve the aim,that means using dollar as international settlements.

Why is TE repeating a lie that earned Jack Lew, the White House Chief of Staff, four Pinocchios from the Post's fact check? Budget resolutions are not subjected to filibusters. If Senate Democrats want to pass a tax hike, they can darn well do it.

Can’t we see; it is all gain for the few on the expense of the masses. However, there will come a time that the reverse will be pursued. Then everyone will be set for the choice either to care for one’s neighbour, or be concerned for one’s own wellbeing. Either see one’s life perpetuating for eternity, or flushes out all together when the energy clock of this solar system stops. The choice is either to adhere to “The World Monetary Order”, or stay with the present system.

Is it just me or is Ron Paul seeming more and more desirable? Romney is too disingenuous, Obama too ideological and unrealistic. Newt is too immoral, and Santorum's agenda is not transparent enough to be trusted. Ron Paul, on the other hand, has sensible ideas (albeit some are completely unrealistic, a problem easily remedied by the Congress and the Senate), and is proving to be the most trustworthy of the candidates.

My stance on Obama is simple. He is a charming and sensible idea man who pursues an agenda fueled by passion. I think he believes what he says for the most part and is a reasonably trustworthy man. Indeed, I like him as a person. But - and this is simply my opinion which may or may not be worth much - he is unrealistic because he falsely assumes his ideas (no matter how deliberately sensible he tries to make them appear) are ever going to be considered anything but controversial by a substantial proportion of Congress and Americans in general (he knows how polarized America is in regard to government role and economic policy). His motives are primarily Democratic; his central arguments, too, are democratic. Thus, when he tries to put off his ideas as if they are centrist and compromising, it's a little misleading. I don't consider myself either Democratic or Republican for what it's worth.

That said, I think he is centrist in his application of his ideologies, attempting to leave passing said democratic bills to the senate and the house. But, to me, this is strategy, allowing him to simply make it so he can say I tried hard to get my democratic ideologies to pass but your government is against this "progress", is simply that: a strategy. This makes me think that he is a politician 1st and a genuine person watching out for the middle class and poor second. If he wasn't that, he would be considerably more controversial, at least if his words are to hold their value.

If this article says anything it is that America has such solid institutions that gridlock in the political system doesn't really affect the departments that run the country. Now if someone were to dismantle those institutions, that stability could be undermined.

Second is that Obama is really not asking to shake things up too much. Ron Paul on the other hand is asking for a wholly different approach to governance, and if Obama has trouble putting through his mild changes, what chance does Ron Paul have of completely defunding and dismantling all the things he wants to defund and dismantle?

Compare campaign promises from candidate Barack Obama to what President Obama is did.

He stated that by televising all healthcare discussions on C-SPAN that it would “shame members of congress” into doing the right thing. (no C-SPAN at the Healthcare meetings)

“Let me say it as simply as I can: transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency” (27 private meetings with big pharma and healthcare execs without CSPAN)

“You’ll get the same kind of coverage that members of Congress give themselves.” (nope did not even try)

“If you don’t have health insurance, then what we’re going to do is to provide you the option of buying into the same kind of federal pool that both Senator McCain and I enjoy as federal employees, which will give you high-quality care, choice of doctors, at lower costs, because so many people are part of this insured group.” (Nope he did not even try and ask for it)

“The first step to reclaiming America's standing in the world has to be closing this facility. As president, Barack Obama will close the detention facility at Guantanamo." (Still open for business)

“And I have seen no information that contradicts the notion that we can bring our troops out safely at a pace of one to two brigades a month, and, again, that pace translates into having our combat troops out in 16 months’ time.” (That was July of 2010 it was over a year after that and moving them to Afghanistan then Iran does not count)

"My presidency will mark a new chapter in America's leadership on climate change.” (Nope did not sign international agreements)

So in 2008 we elected the Democratic candidate, Barack Obama and in both houses of Congress we elected the Democratic candidates to a majority. The ability to pass a vote without any republicans like they did for Healthcare. The Democratic Obama campaign was one based on idealistic changes the American people demanded and voted for. He has not delivered.

Any well meaning politician, as I think you eloquently described President Obama, is inclined to use politics to achieve his ends. Of course he wants to advance his agenda, and to do this he must removed the obstacle and painting the Republican Party into a corner is a shrewd move, and partisan and political. A circular argument.

If anything, these past 3 years have taught Obama that if he forcefully whips Republicans as opposed to assuming them innocent beings and sitting down for negotiation and compromise, his fortunes have been better off.

I hate to say this but as I look at the health care debacle, the financial regulation bill, the debt ceiling proposal, and most recently the temporary extension of payroll tax cuts and unemployment insurance, in those instances that Obama has shown to be tough and cynical, he has performed better.

The Republicans would gladly spit in Obama’s face as opposed to working with him. They are worthless and despite the Democrats being the majority in both houses in 2008-2010, they had more filibusters thrown at them in the Senate then the past 30 years combined. Boehner gets the heat but it is McConnell and Cantor that are truly demented ones. Shove it down their throats as Roosevelt, Truman and Johnson did as that is the only way get things done for the good of the country as opposed to the good of the 1%.

I completely agree & I believe many people simply misses the significance of one person that more than anyone else has defined Obama's first term: it is not Paling or Boehner or Bachmann or some loudmouth Tea Party reactionary; it is our good old, steady Mitch McConnell.

The deficit comes from wars, free trade, shipping jobs overseas and importing all kinds of c.r.a.p. from China, even dumping stuff.
Obama is taking some reasonable small steps in the right direction.
The GOP is 100% Banana Republic crony capitalism.

uhhm. importing "crap" from china let's YOU (and other consumers) buy goods at FAR cheaper prices than it would be the case if everything was produced in US with expensive American labour.

Both Republican's and Democrats don't make sense in general. Republicans increase the deficit by engaging in senseless wars (Iraq, Afghanistan) costing trillions and Democrats expand welfare and other government spending to unreasonable levels.
I think America needs a third party "THE SENSIBLE PARTY" which doesn't go by ideologies rather carefuly and impartialy considers an issue and make good decisions.

i like the idea of a 3rd party...
my thinking would be a party based on a combination of social conservatism (i.e against gay marriage, supporting and encouraging heterosexual marriage, promoting morals, some of the things the 'crazy' evangelicals talk about..except abortion .. only women should decide whether it should be legal or not) and fiscal responsibility (ex: controlling spending -- esp on dept of defense, auditing the fed and making it more transparent, promoting people out of poverty -- not handouts, but bridges, enhancing access to education -- good education..from K to university)...

What you really need is the Rhinoceros party. (See Canada in the 1980s). A sufficiently outrageous programme which guarantees to be unelectable but make people laugh at the stupidities of the other parties.

I am not a US citizen. An indian student studying in US. my idea of a 3rd party is based on observations i made of people's views in the US.

I can close my eyes and without much thought give you the election selling points of both parties.

Democrats: tax the rich, more spending on welfare, civil rights for gays.
Republicans: decrease taxes on the rich and corporations, less welfare, war with anyone (based on random choice perhaps).
that's the same with people. most people already have rigid opinions of how to tackle issues and won't change their views regardless of the reasoning presented before them.

that's something i don't agree with. consider some examples.

1. gay marriages: when you said that you support social conservatism then that's an ideology. Maybe the party people (and general people) should perhaps talk to some gay groups, take opinions of regular people as to why they feel gay marriages are wrong and decide for themselves what might be right to deal with an issue.

2. gov. spending: how is the money being spent? are there inefficiences in the system? etc. etc.

3. taxes: are the taxes high or low on people and corporations? what will be the impact on innovation in case rich are taxes a lot? impact of lowering or increasing the taxes on gov. spending? etc. etc.

after considering every point of view ultimately make decisions. that might be the best (and maybe time consuming) path of take.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't we (deliberately) expand the Federal government with a bunch of temporary programs to try to prevent economic collapse? Shouldn't some of those things be ending? With that, shouldn't the size of the Federal government be actually shrinking? Any sign of that in this budget? No? Didn't think so.

When are we going to see the elephant start to lose weight, instead of just slowing the rate of weight gain? Yeah, tax increases may be needed to help close the budget gap, but don't forget the other side of the equation: The Federal government is just too *&%^$# big.

Yep, you are wrong. "Temporary" in politics-speak means "we haven't been able to pass the tax increases to pay for it yet, but we're working on it". Once they've run any program for 2-3 years, it becomes indispensable...

the answer is obvious. once you pass any program and people are habituated in getting benefits politicians can't stop those programs without losing votes. So, they keep on continuing the programs by taking more government debt, or tax increases and they don't even mend their ways when US is about to become the new Greece in sometime.

You're right about Fox News. Even so, liberals control virtually all of the news media, from The New York Times to the alphabet networks.

Hanmeng is quite right: because the media are controlled by liberals, their policy team takes no heat whatever for their profligacy and redistribution.

Further, it's nonsense to call all of the noise they make about higher taxes being fiscally conservative. Though they may be sensible, more often then not they're financially and later, fiscally repressive, and result in misallocation and inefficiency, which beget further tax and redistribution.

Excuse me, but isn't Fox News the BIGGEST media outlet in the USA. This old BS claim that the media is "liberal" was more true once upon a time. But with the rise of Fox and other Right-wing talk and media, that is no longer.

The Right Wing media ARE the MSM in this country. They just keep repeating this mantra, and certainly never try to be as objective as once great reporters were. They blatantly report their opinionated biases as facts. Edward R. Murrow & his disciples, we miss ya.

Luckily we live in a day and age when people can actively choose where they get their news, and read about an issue from multiple news sites that may represent different points of view. Given the high bar of open mindedness and the fact that most users are under 40, one can also accuse the internet of being liberally biased.

Fox news is pathetic propaganda. There is no mainstream left wing equivalent. Nor should there be. The idea that they are merely balancing out the rest of the media by their own slanting is no excuse. There shouldn't be a slant.

The reason that Dems are not lampooned for huge tax increases is because it hasn't happened. Taxes are the lowest they have been in 40 years.

2) Currently the US is hoping to avoid a Greece/Portugal austerity crisis and needs fiscal stimulus spending to prevent economic failure.

3) Speaking factually, Obama has not refused to make spending cuts. In fact, he has repeatedly offered to make compromise cuts, but his opposition has not been interested in any kind of compromise of the kind that underpins democratic systems.

@Bruce E - please explain how you view the US media to be "controlled" by liberals. Do you just mean that the majority of journalists appear to lean left?
TELEVISION: Given that Fox is the biggest and most watched news source in the country, it would appear that US media is biased towards the right, would it not? MSNBC is a minnow by comparison in terms of influence. Aren't the rest of the alphabets otherwise "controlled" by the large media companies that own them, most of which are not, in fact, at all left wing? Republican talking points and policy frames are given wide consideration and even approval on all the alphabets. CNN is so desperate to be balanced that they have no position on anything. (Advantage Right)
NEWSPAPERS: Yes the NYTimes is left wing, and yes they give the Dems a pass pretty frequently. But the WSJ is a counterweight and is equally biased (and is owned, again by News Corp, aka Fox). Sure, LA Times and Washpo are left, but since most Americans get their news from TV and radio, the papers are not as big an influence. (Advantage left)
RADIO: NPR is left leaning but certainly not radical like, say Pacifica radio is. There is no comparable centrist-right radio to NPR, but there are a host of radical options on the right like Rush, Christian radio networks, etc. My sense is that far more people listen to far-right talk radio than to centrist NPR, but in an effort to be fair let's call it (Advantage: split).
OVERALL: given TV is the most influential medium and it favors the right, I would argue that US media leans to the right. However, I would also be open to saying that it is a tie. I still don't see how anyone could say that the US media is left wing.

Yes, the typical mainstream jour no is left biased. Fox, which I don't watch, is right biased, but a single news organization. Your argument is a straw man. That is is the largest isn't evidence of right bias in the news.

The vast number of news outlets of all type are left biased. And yes, control is a fair judgment whe you consider that most of your anchors and journos are responsible for virtually everything they present.

At this point it is all politics, not policy. Mr. Obama is in re-election mode: trying to do populist stuff that wins votes (tax the rich and those greedy bankers, oh and don't forget those who ship jobs overseas) and then blaming the opposition when they don't get passed. The Republicans are playing right into Mr. Obama's hands with their stubborn refusal to cut the deficit by increasing taxes.

With this bitter deadlock, I just want it to be the bitter month of November.

Think Greece and Germany. In the end the only solution to not raising Federal taxes is to move that service down to the individual states. The way the system was originally designed. Too much money is in play at a Federal level and no one to watch them. Two thirds of all elected official will go on to work on K Street.

Cutting down government may sound like crazy talk but take a look at the Department of Education. By law they are now restricted to taking only 15% from ever dollar the Federal Government gives them.
Start with $1 dollar.
Department of Education takes 15 cents and passes down 85 cents
State takes 12.75 cents and passes down 72.25 cents
County takes 10.84 cents and passes down 61.41 cents
School District takes 9.21 cents and passes down 52.20 cents
Individual School takes 7.83 cents and passes down 44.37 cents

Just cutting out the Federal Government out of this formula would change this dynamic a great deal and free up more money for the schools.
The gift economy that runs Washington no longer answers to the people. Which is why some are trying to break the federal system.

"In the end the only solution to not raising Federal taxes is to move that service down to the individual states."
Will those in the Red States still be able to put the needy on a bus to New York?
Note that the 1996 welfare reform act contained a provision that allowed states to limit benefits for "welfare migrants" from other states to what they would have received in their home states. States in the Northeast and Midwest insisted on it. The Supreme Court struck it down, and it was never spoken of again.
You want to know what "big government" is? Senior citizens, thats what. Lots of them move from NY and Illinois down to Florida and Arizona when they are healthy, have income and spending to be taxed, and don't require services. When they require services they move back.
And the sick? New York found its Medicaid program was paying for follow-up care for New York operations in the states from Virginia down to Georgia.

I think your point misses what is actually the driving force behind our deficit.

The economic slump notwithstanding, it is basically slashed tax revenues (thanks Mr. Bush) and the rising health care costs that are really driving the federal budget into the red.

Of course, the solution for the former problem is to reverse those tax cuts but the solution to the latter is a bit more complicated and it gets down to changing the incentives for health care providers.

The problem with moving the cost of moving services down to the states is that there is no money for them there. If your goal is to eliminate those services altogether, that may not be a draw-back. But it is definitely not a solution to the cost problem.

For an analogy, our state government is attempting to address its budget shortfalls by, among other things, moving some categories of prisoners to county jails. Notwithstanding the detail that none of the counties have significant spare room in their jails.

Eventually, the people and their politicians will have to face the fact that promising benefits without taxes to pay for them is simply a con job tht cannot be sustained. Expect things to get ugly for a while when that finally happens.

The Greeks have no problem spending other peoples money, they will tell you it is their right. Push control of taxing and spending closer to the voter and they will make the decision for you like good voters.

We have other solutions that do not require raising or lowering taxes. Do we really believe that the Department of Education is worth 15% of every dollar we give towards education. How about automatically allocate the money to each state based on equal distribution against population, then let the state do what it is already doing handing out the cash.

"Much of his purported spending reduction is accounting legerdemain: he claims to save more than $800 billion from drawing down operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, but most of that was never going to be spent anyway."

If I've learned one thing, is that in love and in war, you can never count on money that "was never going to be spent anyway".
I'll definitively show some sympathy in that he hasn't escalated Afghanistan any further, and he hasn't started any other war.

But yeah, the state of the polity is depressing...

Minor correction: "Nominal GDP this year will be 6%" should read "Nominal GDP *Growth* this year will be 6%"

Von Neumann, I thought that sentence was an error for a second too, but it's correct. They are saying that nominal GDP was 6% lower than Obama's team forecast three years ago for this time period. It would certainly be nice if the US had 6% economic growth!